The Wrestler...

I hadn't paid a great deal of attention to the run-up to this flick, but I was aware of it - I'd seen the hype getting built up, Rourke all over the interview circuit, awards talk and so on ... but it still wasn't quite on my radar until the lads and I needed something to go and see at the cinema (especially as one of our intended flicks to see is currently not available due to technical difficulties, and another has one measily showing at half nine, which wasn't do-able).

Despite the annoying fizzle from the half-buggered-out speaker to the mid-right in the somewhat pokey theatre the film showed in, it was a bloody great film. It really was.

Rourke has certainly never done better, and it is most definitely the victory flag planted atop the mountain of his career comeback which has been developing over the past few years. I've not really seen much of Rourke's pre-boxing phase career, but quickly noticed him in several post-boxing phase flicks - such as Spun, Once Upon A Time In Mexico and of course Sin City.

Having seen Aronofsky's Requiem For A Dream (excellent, but gruelling by the end, and the best anti-drugs movie that should be - but isn't - shown in schools), I had an idea of what to expect from The Wrestler. Indeed it's at times a dark film about missed opportunities, faded career hopes, dreams and everything in between. It's about lost family, lost connections and even about mortality and our bodies failing us when we need them most.

In a really quick summary, it's like Rocky Balboa meets Requiem For A Dream ... Requiem For Rocky Balboa then. There's more flair and a feel for the dramatic (in this case, the wrestling scenes), but this is probably the more realistic tale of an old war horse battling onwards despite being long past his prime.

Balboa was that 'one in a million' story ... The Wrestler is far more down-to-earth, and far more in touch with the reality of what becomes of every other person in that million who didn't make it, who didn't have a winner's story. It sounds depressing, I'm sure - but it works.

You root for Rourke's "Ram", you suffer with him as he struggles to keep himself going, as he desperately tries to reconnect with those he has left behind, or those he wants to join with to start afresh.

The ending - and don't worry, thar be nay spoilers ahead - is almost annoyingly open. Almost. You can make up your own ending, the post-script if you will, but on screen we're left with Ram doing what he does best - what defines him, what is his entire world.

Rocky Balboa certainly pushes the popular buttons and provides aspiration and hope, and is also a great film, while The Wrestler gives you both of those, but with a dose of reality check, and a lot more post-viewing food for thought. Both movies do what they do wonderfully, and indeed they both star two resurrected war horses hitting back triumphantly after troubles, strife and obscurities.

It's only mid-January, but already this is a strong contender for the best film of 2009 for me.

My war isn't over, Adrian...

Well, after finishing "A Bridge Too Far", I decided to re-visit the "Rambo" trilogy (soon to join the legion of "4th in the series of" sequels of recent times (the trailer looking awesome), and I have to say, the first movie is awesome. The 2nd and 3rd are good, but not awesome, nor shite...but not superb, although I get their reason for being - 2nd movie is Rambo returning to Vietnam, 3rd movie is Rambo's modern day Vietnam, after ending his personal war with Vietnam he needed a new war to fight, so it ended up being in Afghanistan ... although being thoroughly perplexed by Middle Eastern politics, I don't know where "Rambo 3" fits in with all the shite going on over there now.

All this talk of "Rambo" though, does remind me of the hilarious, yet fully justified, rant from the Angry Nintendo Nerd regarding film franchises and the titles - such as these films:

1) First Blood
2) Rambo: First Blood 2
3) Rambo 3
4) John Rambo

There's not the consistency of Stallone's other franchise, that is the utterly superb "Rocky" series - solid Roman Numberals all the way till the last one, which as we all should know is "Rocky Balboa" - although that is fully justified, it was such a long gap since "Rocky V", and it exists in a different time, whereas the previous films were all quite quick-fired out, or within the same range of time ... it's why I guess "Live Free or Die Hard/Die Hard 4.0" makes sense ... technically ... I say technically, because both those titles suck - just call THAT film "DIE HARD 4" and leave it be, but as Stallone is actually a Jack of several trades, he does inject his own soul into his heroes - particularly Rocky - so I think it makes complete sense of cap-off his two biggest characters by titling their final films after the protagonist.

I recently re-watched the second half of "Rocky II", recent as in yesterday morning when I was waiting to use the internet, and it just reminded me of how awesome those films are (well, the fifth is a bit tosh, but with all the Tommy Gun crap taken about, it's actually still pretty good, because it advances the story of Rocky Balboa onwards). Plus - the soundtrack is just awesome, I listened to the 'best of' compilation whilst doing some title sequence tests for "I Am Zombie Man 3", and considering the story of "IAZM3", whilst listening to the "Rocky" soundtrack, it just fit really well ... the vibes being somewhat similar.